ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY V. COMELEC, GR No.

190582, April 8, 2010

This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, with an application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, filed by Ang
Ladlad LGBT Party (Ang Ladlad) against the Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated November 11, 2009 (the First
Assailed Resolution) and December 16, 2009 (the Second Assailed Resolution) in SPP No. 09-228 (PL) (collectively, the Assailed Resolutions). The
case has its roots in the COMELEC’s refusal to accredit Ang Ladlad as a party-list organization under Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise
known as the Party-List System Act.

FACTS:

Before the COMELEC, petitioner argued that the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender) community is a marginalized and under-
represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender identity; that LGBTs are victims of exclusion,
discrimination, and violence; that because of negative societal attitudes, LGBTs are constrained to hide their sexual orientation; and that Ang Ladlad
complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this Court in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections. Ang Ladlad
laid out its national membership base consisting of individual members and organizational supporters, and outlined its platform of governance. On
August 17, 2009, Ang Ladlad filed a Petition for registration with the COMELEC.

On November 11, 2009, after admitting the petitioner’s evidence, the COMELEC (Second Division) dismissed the Petition on moral grounds that
petitioner tolerates immorality which offends religious beliefs, and advocates sexual immorality. Petitioner should likewise be denied accreditation
not only for advocating immoral doctrines but likewise for not being truthful when it said that it “or any of its nominees/party-list representatives
have not violated or failed to comply with laws, rules, or regulations relating to the elections.” Furthermore, states COMELEC, Ang Ladlad will be
exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith. When Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration, COMELEC
still, on December 16, 2010, upheld the First Assailed Resolution.

On January 4, 2010, Ang Ladlad a Petition, praying that the Supreme Court annul the Assailed Resolutions and direct the COMELEC to grant Ang
Ladlad’s application for accreditation. Ang Ladlad also sought the issuance ex parte of a preliminary mandatory injunction against the COMELEC,
which had previously announced that it would begin printing the final ballots for the May 2010 elections by January 25, 2010.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the denial of accreditation by COMELEC, violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of religion.
insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma.

2. Whether or not the Assailed Resolutions contravened the constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal
protection of laws, of Ang Ladlad, as well as constituted violations of the Philippines’ international obligations against discrimination based
on sexual orientation.

HELD:

1. Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is “government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly,
“governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.” The Supreme Court ruled that it was grave
violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad.
Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed Resolutions should depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is
able to advance some justification for its rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine. The government must act for secular
purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects.

2. The Assailed Resolutions have not identified any specific overt immoral act performed by Ang Ladlad. Even the Office of the Solicitor
General agrees that “there should have been a finding by the COMELEC that the group’s members have committed or are committing
immoral acts.” Respondent have failed to explain what societal ills are sought to be prevented, or why special protection is required for the
youth. Under our system of laws, every group has the right to promote its agenda and attempt to persuade society of the validity of its
position through normal democratic means. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and
this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Absent of any compelling
state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or the Supreme Court, to impose its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is
certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one. Laws
of general application should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate in the party-list system on the same basis as
other marginalized and under-represented sectors. This is in accord with the country’s international obligations to protect and promote
human rights. The principle of non-discrimination as it relates to the right to electoral participation, enunciated in the UDHR and the
ICCPR should be recognized. The Constitution and laws should be applied uninfluenced by public opinion. True democracy should be
resilient enough to withstand vigorous debate due to conflicting opinions.

The Petition was GRANTED. The Resolutions of the Commission on Elections dated November 11, 2009 and December 16, 2009 in
SPP No. 09-228 (PL) was SET ASIDE and the COMELEC was directed to GRANT petitioner’s application for party-list accreditation.